That’s my somewhat less-than-technical interpretation of United States v. Jones, a closely watched case that may have broad implications regarding who can track you, using what devices, for how long, and why.

Back in 2004, FBI agents surreptitiously attached a GPS tracking device to a car registered to the wife of alleged drug kingpin Antoine Jones, then tracked the car’s movements for a month, accumulating more than 3,000 pages worth of location data. Jones was arrested after the car made several trips to a house containing a stash of drugs and cash.

The problem? The Feds didn’t obtain a warrant first. (More accurately, they failed to follow the procedures outlined in the warrant they did obtain.) That violated Jones’ 4th Amendment rights against unlawful search and seizure, all nine justices agreed.

… Law enforcement authorities now have a powerful tool for conducting inexpensive, unobtrusive, twenty-four hour a day dragnet-type surveillance of an individual. The technology is also cheap enough to be used for mass surveillance of the public’s movements…. Absent a warrant requirement, the police could track unlimited numbers of members of the public for days, weeks, or months at a time, without ever leaving their desks. No person could be confident that he or she was free from round-the-clock surveillance of his or her movements and associations….The police could engage in such “Big Brother” surveillance even if the targeted individuals were completely law abiding, and presented no reasonable ground for any suspicion.

Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in favor of overturning Jones’s conviction, argued that the placement of the device was a “trespass” on his property – leaving open the possibility that tracking using a non-trespassing device (like the target’s own cell phone) might be acceptable.

Alito wrote a concurring opinion that questioned the amount of time Jones was tracked without a warrant – implying that shorter periods of tracking might be acceptable. Sotomayor wrote a third opinion agreeing with the first two and flirting with the idea that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy even when they voluntarily disclose information to third parties (like cell companies), but stopped short of making a ruling to that effect.

Got a question about privacy and/or social media? TY4NS blogger Dan Tynan may have the answer (and if not, he’ll make something up). Visit his snarky, occasionally NSFW blog eSarcasm or follow him on Twitter: @tynan_on_tech. For the latest IT news, analysis and how-to’s, follow ITworld on Twitter and Facebook.

This story, "Supreme Court Ruling: Privacy Rights 1, Cops 0" was originally published by
ITworld.

To comment on this article and other PCWorld content, visit our Facebook page or our Twitter feed.